Suggestions on how to promote new ATC

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Hello All,

 

First I would like to wish you and your family the best of this holiday season!

 

The purpose of my post is to start a discussion amongst the senior players here at VATUSA, and help to promote a positive and fun environment to recruit new controllers to this every expanding network of pilots and ATC.

 

Okay, I'll start with my background. I'm a retired 737 driver in real life, and started with VATSIM in July 05. August 05, I joined an ARTCC with VATUSA, and currently hold a S3 with over 600 hours.

 

Before I begin, please take note that this is my observations only, I'm not trying to start any flame war, so please forgive me if these ideas have been discussed/dismissed before.

 

Thanks that your still reading this, so let me begin.

 

I was working Tower in a busy ARTCC today, and had a good chat with a Senior Controller while online. We discussused some interesting ideas, that I thought I would share.

 

The big question is: Why is it so many "great" sectors go un-staffed?" Some responses i've heard are as follows:

 

No traffic, bores too many controllers.

New Students can't get signed off to work the positons.

Pilots don't want to fly where there's no ATC.

I signed up as a new ATC member, but nobody is there to help me, so I just gave up on it.

 

Of course I've heard alot more, but boiled down, these seem to be the most often heard complaints from my experience.

 

So here I go, "walking carefully onto the soapbox" my thoughts/recommendations.

 

First, why not consolidate are ARTCC Instructor/Mentor rescources? We have plenty of excellent controllers online at any given moment, and it is a waste for the poor newbee S1 to hang out all day waiting for an INS/MEN to sign on from their [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned ARTCC/FIR, just for the basic ASRC/.65 stuff.

 

Second, why are playing this game as ARTCCs are rivals? Heck, sure it's nice to say I'm on the LAX, ATL, BOS, or whatever, but the BOTTOM LINE is this, were all on the same team! As well as our friends and colleauges abroad. So instead of competing with one another, lets team up and help one-another! I feel this IS the WIN-WIN solution.

 

Thank you for your consideration (quickly stepping down from soap-box now)

[Ross Carlson]

My initial reaction to your post is this: There is enough to learn about the SOPs, procedures, methodologies, unwritten rules, etc. about one ARTCC. To be able to effectively instruct at multiple ARTCCs would require a lot more study and work than I think most are willing to put in. I rarely find time to train at the one ARTCC where I am a visiting controller, much less instruct there.

 

As for the stuff that applies across the board (7110 stuff) then ya, maybe there's a way to share instruction resources ... but that's really a pretty small piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure how much it would help, but I'd be interested in hearing ideas on how (practically speaking) we would go about sharing our resources.

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Thanks Ross,

 

Sorry I'm not making myself clear (hehe, sitting at work right now, dealing with all the other "self edit" going on.

 

But my biggest point is, why not set-up a simple training standard, that would allow the new student to get online quickly.

 

And the second, why are we all rivals? As VATSIM "IS A LEARNING ENVRONMENT", shouldn't we do all that we can to help our new brothers and sisters?

 

I applogise because YOUR efforts have given us ATISMaker, and (still waiting with bated breath) the release of VRC!

 

I Hope you see the spirit of my post! Not trying to "rewrite the book" as you have far more experience than I!

 

Gerry

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

It's honestly just not practical.

 

I know a conglemerate of Instructors has been mentioned before for absolute basic ATC stuff, but to allow any instructor to promote anywhere would just be impossible. As Ross says, there are just too many SOPs to learn. I would be perfectly comfortable critiquing (is that a word?) a controller from any ARTCC on their general ATC stuff, i.e. procedures, phraseology, etc., but definitely not on the SOPs.

[Ross Carlson]

I definitely see the spirit of your post. Although I'm not sure I sense the rivalry that you do. It seems to me that all the ARTCCs work pretty well together. I think that if we found a way to share training resources, most ARTCCs would participate. One barrier to this that I see is that the first position a new student deals with (DEL) is the one position where local procedures are extremely important, namely preferred routes, SID [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignments, and things of that nature. So, from the very beginning, the instructor must be intimately familiar with the local procedures. As a ZBW instructor, I wouldn't be able to take a new ZLA recruit and get him started, without knowing the ZLA local procedures.

 

Also, at ZBW, our students learn the 7110 (and any VATUSA-wide stuff) on their own ... we don't spend time teaching that stuff. The one-on-one training between an instructor/mentor and a student usually deals with refining local procedures and of course building efficiency, vectoring skills, etc... anything that the student can't learn on his own by reading available training materials and the 7110.

 

I'm not trying to shoot down any ideas ... just playing a little Devil's Advocate to keep the discussion going.

[Lance Williams]

If I'm not mistaking, the basic stuff WILL be covered in the new training program when it's unveiled.

[Ian Elchitz 810151]

I've been working on a training Wiki that students can use as a reference for controlling. When it gets released I hope that the amazing resources we have here at Vatusa will add to and enhance it.

 

It follows my personal training philosophy (drilled into many controllers over the years) that you have to learn the basics/foundations of ATC.

 

The Wiki focuses on "how to control" not "how to control at XXX". The idea is that given basic skills, a controller can apply those at any ARTCC by simply learning local procedures.

 

I'm of the opinion that we need to focus on basic skills for our controllers so that they can simply apply local procedures to those skills with little practice. In the end, I feel that this will lead to more quality controllers with the ability to move from ARTCC to ARTCC - resulting in greater coverage for our pilots - even in the "big complex" centers.

 

For those interested - the content in the wiki is based on the syllabus I put together while at Oakland ARTCC in 2002. After coming up with an outline, there was a collaborative effort by many people to research and create docomeentation. The original idea was based on my own experience while being trained, training others, and some other great resources I found at centers like Boston, New York, and LA.

 

I'm strongly of the opinion that if we have some sort of collaborative resource - we can eventually cover 80% of the topics in detail. The possibilities are mind boggling.

 

I'm not sure what they are putting together at VATUSA as this has not been communicated at all. Regardless of their output - I'd see this as an unofficial training guide that could compliment whatever program is released by VATUSA.

 

Anyone interested in contributing should drop me a line.

[Joey Vargo 878034]

I'm going to try and combine the idea of ARTCC staffing equalization and the more uniform training that you all have been talking about. This is a very far-out idea, but wanted to throw it out anyways..to see what your thoughts and feelings are about it. Gerry mentioned that "so many "great" sectors go un-staffed." Provided that Ian's training program would be completed..what if we tried to more closely mirror the real-world staffing process. Have new Students select a broader region when they join VATUSA. A VATUSA committee would decide (prior to) how much an "ideal" staffing number would be at each ARTCC. Once a new student joins, the committee decides, based on need, which ARTCC, in the region selected, should get that student. Now I know that this takes away from personal selection, and that each ARTCC prides itself on having its own unique styles and characteristics. Part of the fun as a controller is being able to work whichever facility in the United States you want. I'm just going in line with what Gerry brought up before; that this would hopefully spread out more coverage over the whole country, on a more daily basis. With Ian's training plan, the only difference would eventually be airspaces, airports, locations, etc. Again, this is very out there, and would take a long time, if ever, to come into practice. Just looking for some feedback, thoughts, ideas. I think its along the lines of this topic..

 

Thanks

Joey

[Ross Carlson]

I don't think it would work, Joey. Like you said, it would take the personal selection factor out of the equation. I, for one, would never have joined VATUSA if I didn't get to choose exactly where I would control.

[Garry Morris 920567]

Not a great thing.

 

1. Each ARTCC is a little different, with very different airspace, and different position/voice rules, etc. The idea is that if you're a hyper realism freak, you might join ARTCC X, whereas if you're a more casual controller you'd join ARTCC Y. Its as much a fit to the ARTCC's community/rules with your personality as anything else.

2. You want people to be excited about controlling. ZAB was a good fit for my personality, I like and have worked with most of its staff prior to joining as a controller, and I knew I liked their styles and attitudes. If I had been put in NY or LA, I'd probably have quit a long time ago. Nothing against them, but they're a little more serious that I'd like to be to have fun. Just a difference of personalities.

3. Local knowledge. Other than #2, I joined ZAB because I live in Tucson, and am very familiar with the southwest. Its a special thrill to be able to control in places I know well and have lived in.

4. Complexity. I really don't want to control in ZLA or ZNY because of the complexity of the airspace. Being a casual controller, I need a place with easier to control airspaces, and a little less traffic than those very high traffic areas. It allows me to enjoy myself.

5. Traffic levels. A choice of ARTCCs allows a new controller to determine just how much traffic they want to handle. I get stressed enough with ZAB's levels, I'd probably have a breakdown with ZLA's.

 

Yes, some ARTCCs are understaffed. In some cases it might be because of a lack of traffic at major airports. However, in other cases its because the management is not as responsive as they should be, has attitudes incompatible with a large number of people, or has SOPs that are so position restrictive that people lose heart and leave. Dumping more new controllers into a grist mill such as that does a double disservice, as now not only do you have an ARTCC with a high turnover rate (and low staffing anyways), but you're also destroying more controllers' want to control by putting them in a place that doesn't agree with their style/personality.

 

By letting folks check out the various ARTCCs styles, complexity, and procedures, you allow them to find the best fit and therefore maximize the chances that a new controller will continue to control and ascend through the ranks. I think we can all agree that we need more butts in the seats just as much, if not moreso, than we need regular staffing at certain ARTCCs. Discouraging potential controllers by limiting their region when they sign up will result in an even smaller pool of people willing to control. Choice is good.

 

P.S. I have nothing whatsoever against ZLA and ZNY, they just make fine examples of ARTCCs at which I personally would not work out well. I've always received great controlling from both of those fine groups as a pilot.

[Garry Morris 920567]

As for ways to improve staffing in some places. And speaking in total generalities:

 

Accountability. VATUSA should start a baseline of controller hours worked at the various ARTCCs. They should take controller and pilot complaints such as the ones you've run into Gerry and start asking themselves "why do I get so many complaints from X ARTCC's controllers?". If you're receiving numerous complaints each week along the lines of "management is unresponsive", "management is never around", "I need training to get onto the next position and I just can't get it", heck, if you're seeing a ton of controllers trying to transfer out of an ARTCC, find out why! While I know our ATMs and dATMs work very hard, some people just aren't management material, or don't have the particular style of management to accomplish a solution to whatever issue is occurring at a particular ARTCC. That issue could be poor training, bad SOPs, lack of training positions/availability, etc. Hold the ATMs accountable for the problems their ARTCC is experiencing. Ask them to set goals, and if they miss those goals, find out why! If they are unable to meet those goals, politely ask them to step down and start interviewing replacements.

 

Managing anything, be it a business, a department, or even an ARTCC is VERY difficult to do well. There are a ton of skills, a ton of time required, and a certain way of thinking and approaching problems. It's not a mark against you if you aren't able to manage something on the first try. Heck, its not a mark against you if you can't manage it on the 5th try. It is a crime, however, for someone overseeing managers to allow those managers to run something into the ground.

 

Manage your managers!

[Gerry Hattendorf 935415]

Let me try to refine by suggestions as this.

 

If one of the main reasons a specific ARTCC/FIR has a small roster due to lack of training, (say only a couple instructors) then promotions grind to a halt. Then the vicious circle begins.

 

Not enough qualified controllers, airspace goes unmanned, pilots avoid the unmanned sector, controllers lose interest to stare at an empty scope, blah blah blah.

 

So my suggestion is this: (thought I'd never get around to it, did you! )

 

When a controller has reached the Instructor level, he/she has demonstrated not only that their proficient in all ATC positions, but have been qualified to teach. I think that allowing instructors to instruct at a different ARTCC/FIR would be acceptable as the instructor would study the local SOPs (and with permission from the ATM) prior to accepting such an [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ignment.

 

Maybe this is too much work for the instructor, and maybe it wouldn't fly. But if an instructor at ZXX happened to notice that a new controller needed some help at ZYY, and the instructor is proficient at ZYY, why not allow him to help the student to get signed off.

 

More controllers online = more pilots flying in that sector = more controllers online = more pilots, etc. (vicious circle reverses itselp)

 

Just my 2 cents!

[Bo Gercke 845743]

First, why not consolidate are ARTCC Instructor/Mentor rescources? We have plenty of excellent controllers online at any given moment, and it is a waste for the poor newbee S1 to hang out all day waiting for an INS/MEN to sign on from their [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igned ARTCC/FIR, just for the basic ASRC/.65 stuff.

 

Gerry,

This is an excellent question. It's actually something that is currently being looked at. My understanding is that Jim Johnson, along with a team of Instructors is currently looking at consolidating all of the "basics" and creating a VATUSA Academy. I can tell you that all of the posted concerns ARE being looked at and addressed. I firmly believe that it is something that can and will work. In fact, I'm so convinced because I am a product of an academy type environment in the US Navy ATC School. It didn't teach me SOP, it didn't teach me LOA. It didn't teach me MVA's or ESA's, it taught me how to work with those guidelines. It didn't teach me everything in the 7110, but it taught me enough to be able to get to my facility and get qualified with a BASIC understanding of the information.

 

Frankly, that laundry list of SOP's, airspace too complex, too much to learn nonsense is just that. Reduced runway seperation is EXACTLY the same at LAX as it as at po-dunk Cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] Delta. Reading a clearance at MCO is exactly the same as it is at MEI. Those are 7110 basics. I feel that creating an academy is ESSENTIAL to creating a "Team" environment, as we will figure out a way of getting all of the new ATC's into a cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts]room, or sometihng similar, and we will start creating a comeraderie between new controllers, regardless of where they go.

 

Accountability. VATUSA should start a baseline of controller hours worked at the various ARTCCs. They should take controller and pilot complaints such as the ones you've run into Gerry and start asking themselves "why do I get so many complaints from X ARTCC's controllers?". If you're receiving numerous complaints each week along the lines of "management is unresponsive", "management is never around", "I need training to get onto the next position and I just can't get it", heck, if you're seeing a ton of controllers trying to transfer out of an ARTCC, find out why! While I know our ATMs and dATMs work very hard, some people just aren't management material, or don't have the particular style of management to accomplish a solution to whatever issue is occurring at a particular ARTCC. That issue could be poor training, bad SOPs, lack of training positions/availability, etc. Hold the ATMs accountable for the problems their ARTCC is experiencing. Ask them to set goals, and if they miss those goals, find out why! If they are unable to meet those goals, politely ask them to step down and start interviewing replacements.

 

This is something that has just been brought up in the ATM's forum. This IS something that is being addressed, and not surprisingly, there are little responses to that forum. So we are working on something that is going to address the issue of "Title ATM's". We are going to do our best to remedy the rash of ATM's holding on to a facility for months without any kind of active involvement only to show up at ATM meetings and tell us how staus quo everything is. We are going to resolve the issue of ATM's destroying facilites with a lack of attention and leveling them for someone else to come in a re-build. I beleive that this is a major factor as to why we don't get the best people possible into the ATM positions. It is simply a m[Mod - Happy Thoughts]ive amount of work to get a leveled facility back on its feet. Most people who are well qualified, don't have that kind of time. Most of the people who AREN't qualified have plenty of time. So yes, you are heard. And your issues are being addressed.

 

Best Regards,

Edited December 16, 2005 at 10:41 PM by Guest

[Ross Carlson]

Maybe this is too much work for the instructor, and maybe it wouldn't fly. But if an instructor at ZXX happened to notice that a new controller needed some help at ZYY, and the instructor is proficient at ZYY, why not allow him to help the student to get signed off.

 

A perfectly valid question. There are many big IFs in your question, though. The biggest one being "if the instructor is proficient at ZYY" ... that's the hitch. The instructor would have to be proficient with all the local procedures for any ARTCC where he might instruct. I think that's too much to ask of the average VATSIM instructor. And I don't mean to suggest that the average instructor CAN'T learn all the local procedures at numerous ARTCCs ... I'm just not sure most would WANT to invest the time to learn them. There would have to be some strong motivation.

 

However, as Bo said, there's plenty of consolidation that can be done with procedures that apply across the board. I'm looking forward to seeing what VATUSA comes up with.

[Bryan Wollenberg 810243]

I'm just not sure most would WANT to invest the time to learn them. There would have to be some strong motivation.

 

You have to remember too that Instructors actually DO like controlling sometimes too. It's going to take some SERIOUS motivation indeed.

[Garry Morris 920567]

Thanks Bo! Good to know that's being looked at. My company is in the middle of revising their management style by holding managers accountable and looking at performance metrics to avoid those "title" managers that really do nothing to improve their area. Its a very painful process, but if you don't do it, you'll go out of business.

[Jim Johnson 814050]

VATUSA is listening to the comments from the membership. Please stay tuned for an official VATUSA Press Release regarding Training within the next week or two.